Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

November 10, 201 1 1 Volume 51 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Board adequate- ly stated on the record the grounds for disapproval of LEP's application. The court explained that the adequate record requirement of RSA 676:4, I(h) "anticipates an express written record that sufficiently appris- es an applicant of the reasons for disapproval and provides an adequate record of the board's reasoning for review on appeal." The court said the statutory requirement could be satisfied by "[al written denial letter combined with the minutes of a planning board meeting." Here, the Board's written letter of denial did not enumerate the rea- sons for denying LEP's application. Accordingly, the court looked to see whether the Board's meeting minutes adequately stated the reasons for disapproval. Minutes from a January 6, 2010, meeting showed that: one Board member voted against approval for aesthetic reasons; another mem- ber voted against approval for safety and aesthetic reasons; and a third member voted against approval for environmental concerns. LEP argued that because the votes cast to deny the application re- flected "individual sentiments rather than collective consensus," the Board's "general denial" of the application was not adequate. The court disagreed, finding the record "adequately reflected] the Board's reasons for denying the application." The record showed that the Board had dis- cussed many aspects of the proposed plan during the deliberative session. The record also showed that the Board" identified concerns and unre- solved issues regarding the proposed subdivision's impact on aesthetics, the environment, and the safety of persons and property." Moreover, the Board discussed the need to provide reasons for the denial. The meeting transcript detailed three Board members' positions, and it revealed that the Board's further discussion indicated that it agreed that the recitation of those positions described its reasons for denial. The court conclud- ed that the Board's denied of LEP's application based on "aesthetics ... , safety concerns, and environmental concerns" was sufficient. See also: Motorsports Holdings, LLC v. Town of Tamworth, 160 N.H. 95, 993 A.2d 189 (2010). Case Note: LEP had made other arguments in appealing the denial of its application. The court also rejected those arguments. 10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters